"Suddenly Frodo noticed that a strange-looking weather-beaten man, sitting in the shadows near the wall, was also listening intently to the hobbit-talk. He had a tall tankard in front of him, and was smoking a long-stemmed pipe curiously carved. His legs were stretched out before him, showing high boots of supple leather that fitted him well, but had seen much wear and were now caked with mud. A travel-stained cloak of heavy dark-green cloth was drawn close about him, and in spite of the heat of the room he wore a hood that overshadowed his face; but the gleam of his eyes could be seen as he watched the hobbits."

They're sticking to their "we're actively listening to people's feedback" they started after the end of Mass Effect 3. I almost believe them, even if it's ironic in this context the game is based on an FPS engine. Buuuuut they wouldn't sink that low, would they?

Also, I kinda, sorta, maybe preferred the second. I can't properly remember. The gameplay was slightly better, mostly because of the new, swooshier combat animation I enjoyed more than I should've and the problem with the plot I saw as an experiment in story telling that failed, something that's still commendable.

I just felt like the scope of the first game was way larger, and I really liked that. I also liked the more bird's eye view of the combat.

"Suddenly Frodo noticed that a strange-looking weather-beaten man, sitting in the shadows near the wall, was also listening intently to the hobbit-talk. He had a tall tankard in front of him, and was smoking a long-stemmed pipe curiously carved. His legs were stretched out before him, showing high boots of supple leather that fitted him well, but had seen much wear and were now caked with mud. A travel-stained cloak of heavy dark-green cloth was drawn close about him, and in spite of the heat of the room he wore a hood that overshadowed his face; but the gleam of his eyes could be seen as he watched the hobbits."

If we're talking in terms of combat the second game did feel more actiony and you had a bigger role in the combat for that game. But as far as the overall experience the first game is still champ. If they named Dragon Age 2 to anything besides dragon age 2 I would say the game is pretty great but being that its part of the Dragon Age series it's hard to like it.

Have you tried turn it off and on again?QU:You look sad and frightened.Stricken:i know this probably isn't the time or place now, but god damn millo is a hunk

No, they took a more simpler approach, it still retained most of what made it good, they gave it a great story and a powerful but not immortal protagonist. I think Crysis 2's approach was better. In Crysis 1 the guns had little to no feel for the shooting. Crysis will always be more sophisticated than Cod.

I do hate to go off topic so something about Dragon Age 3......... that was it.

Not to mention the all new and "completely different" Fifa game every bloody year. Even Call of Duty is more diverse than that. It is beyond me, how people keep lapping this stuff up when they are paying £40+ on what should inevitably be DLC, a roster update, a new feature of two in the options menu, a team chaining fucking jerseys.

Sports gamers have no problem justifying it when they put hundred of hours into the sports series of their choice every year. We can argue about the bullshit of yearly releases, day one dlc, $15 map packs, mandatory multiplayer and every other issues we can find in their business practices, but the problem is those business practices make them tons of money so in practice they aren't wrong.

I don't doubt that people put work into fine tuning the experience, and day one DLC isn't really an issue for me. It's on disc DLC that puts a hedgehog in my prostate, if I already paid for a game, and there for own it, why can I not access what is on the disc fully. It's like buying a pair of trousers and being charged extra to use one of the pockets, it's madness.

As for EA sports, it's the fact that people a blind enough to buy Madden and Fifa each year and have to audacity to see me in a line at the same game shop and see me with a game that took years to make, and tell me it's shit, not based on personal experience mind you, but because they think the cover art looks gay. (Seriously happened) I know people are entitled to their own opinions, but there is a fine line between opinionated and being a gaping ovary clearing.

What I'm trying to say is, EA are leading an example (and the figures show) that safe sequels, tacked on multiplayer, online-fucking-passes and yearly releases that are almost identical to the prequel make for a much less, more stagnant market. It's EA's boldfaced arrogance that pisses me off. Worst still other company's follow suit. I don't hate their games as much, it's EA or at least the people working at EA I don't like, and I don't mean the hard working developers.

* New Engine- I'm especially happy about this as I love new Engines for their new possibilities.

*More closely related to DA:O-This need to be the most important because the reason the series has prospered is because of Origins.

*Armor Customization for followers is back- Fina-fucking-ly

Other things that are known to be in DAIII

• It will have improved level design over Dragon Age II.

• Players will be visiting at least one city or other location in Orlais

• Players will be able to customize their companion characters' gear. Already mentioned I know, but more specifically)Players may also be able to mess around with textiles and dyes.

• Player decisions from the first two games will carry forward

"Suddenly Frodo noticed that a strange-looking weather-beaten man, sitting in the shadows near the wall, was also listening intently to the hobbit-talk. He had a tall tankard in front of him, and was smoking a long-stemmed pipe curiously carved. His legs were stretched out before him, showing high boots of supple leather that fitted him well, but had seen much wear and were now caked with mud. A travel-stained cloak of heavy dark-green cloth was drawn close about him, and in spite of the heat of the room he wore a hood that overshadowed his face; but the gleam of his eyes could be seen as he watched the hobbits."

People aren't blind when they are buying any yearly release, they know exactly what they are getting and perfectly okay with it, if they weren't the wouldn't be buying it. And EA has to put those titles out yearly to be able to afford the licensing fees of the NFL, FIFA, NHL, NCAA. Secondly, you are expecting way to much maturity out of gamers in general.

Here goes the thing with your issues with the state of multiplayer, you can avoid those things if you want, unless you are some kind of achievement/trophy whore. I actually think at this point EA is taking more risks in publishing new IPs and stuff from partners than Activision, Ubisoft, Capcom, or most of the other large publishers, but then again large publishing isn't about revolution it's luck if you get evolution. As far as the forced MP in DA3 goes it should be no surprise, do remember Bioware used to actually put MP in their games, it's probably gonna run like a Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights on a modern engine.

Hey Veg, FPS engines don't just power FPSs anymore. Take a look at the variety of genres running on Unreal3. I think as time goes on we will see engines be much less genre specific, especially as publishers sink money into unified in house engines like Rockstar is doing with Rage or Ubisoft is doing with Anvil.

Sadly, I must admit when you're right, and I got a little bit into my own thing. I know in the end, it's just business men trying to keep their business running and that supply and demand is a thing that I'll have too live with. Giving how everyone has their own preference and choice, and I'd have to be a massive cunt to try and take those away. In the end I've just grown more cynical about the whole gaming market since it's change from hobby to business. Games are doing things I wouldn't have dreamt of 10 years ago and I wouldn't change that.

As for you saying people not being blind when buying yearly releases, that one is a wee bit no true Scotsman. I have met and talked to people who think yearly releases are the bees-knees (It if ever use that word again, kill me, please.) but until someone pointed it out, they were quite oblivious to that fact, not completely, but I now know some who have stopped getting them after they have been introduced to different titles. Heck I was the same with the WWE/WWF gaming series.

But I stand by this, and I mean it. Nothing good can and will never come of on-disk DLC, ever.